Anthropological Revolution

The Anthropological Revolution is, according to mathematician and former Slovakian Minister of the Interior Vladimír Palko, a movement that encompasses a broad range of phenomena taking place primarily in the contemporary liberal western society, although in general it is a truly global phenomenon.

The term refers to new liberal political thinking and leftist politics with roots that can be traced at least as far back to the aftermath of WWII and the Cold war. There can be discerned its link leading to Marxism-Leninism. This new leftists philosophy and politics is however characterized by lack of the highest guardian for its purity, the task that was previously assumed in the leftist camp of Marxist-Leninist style to be carried out by Kremlin. There is no hierarchical power structure associated with it either but still its functioning resembles to network. It does not operate by obeying orders hence it does not have any agreed-upon name either. Nevertheless, all adherents of it appear to act as if they would know their particular roles well to make smooth way for its agenda.

This somewhat fuzzy umbrella philosophy presents revolutionary view on what brings happiness to humans in their intimate domains of family and sexual relationships, introduces new morals for human beings in their boundary moments of entering and departing the world and at bottom line it can be called the philosophy of the anthropological revolution.
This new philosophy, also based on moral relativism and policies stemming from it such as double-dealing, Machiavellianism and psychological manipulation, has taken roots in modern Western Society and ostensibly reaps success in influencing the contemporary thinking. The traditional order and values are represented by Christianity that is henceforce implicitly assumed to be the main obstacle for modern liberalism and thus becomes the first-line enemy against which anthropological revolution leads undeclared war.[note 1] Some claim modern liberalism of anthropological revolution is nowadays countered by pro-life movement similarly to Reagan’s anti-communism standing on the other side of barricade against Marxism-Leninism during the Cold war.[3]

Historical background

For the next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality. And it is coming, not from a few Socialists surviving from the Fabian Society, but from the living exultant energy of the rich resolved to enjoy themselves at last, with neither Popery nor Puritanism nor Socialism to hold them back … The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow, but much more in Manhattan.

In 1956 Nikita Khrushchev revealed in his address to communist delegates participating in an unofficial meeting of the Twentieth Party Congress that Stalin, who was for thirty years the leader of the Soviet Communist party, soviet state and international communist movement, was the criminal of striking sort. Historians Medvedevs wrote that after the speech, number of people had upset stomach and had to be either braced or even carried out of the meeting hall.[5] Although the “secret speech” was meant to remain confidential, the information gradually leaked to outsiders, reached the western world and confirmed what many already had anticipated.[6] The disillusioned western leftist intellectuals found themselves to face the dilemma[note 2] whether they will continue favouring the ideas that were shown utopian, dehumanizing and eye-strikingly destructive and malignant or whether they will divert to something new. Part of them including Whittaker Chambers, Malcolm Muggeridge and Elizabeth Bentley gradually turned to Christianity and rediscovered its traditional wisdom.

The adherents of Christianity were traditionally perceived as the first target by leftists’ propaganda, they were subject of adamant opposition and routinely considered for being narrow-minded and bigot. But now the Christians’ criticism of communism revealed at the end of the day to be correct. Those liberals who continually kept refusing Christianity started looking for new ways out of their lost illusion. This gave birth to what Patrick Buchanan calls in US context cultural Marxism, although the most commonly used name is also modernliberalism. In European context this modern liberalism is typically extended by attribute leftist (liberalism).

The result of ongoing anthropological revolution is i.a. that former communist politicians from Eastern Europe who built up the Iron curtain are nowadays in the Western Society and especially in institutions of European Union and European Parliament dominated by liberal thinking more welcome than Christian politicians who helped to remove communist régimes or than Christian politicians in general. Anti-Christian sentiment in the western liberal society can be documented by case of Italian professor Rocco Buttiglione in European Parliament whose 2004 candidacy for European Commissioner was fiercely refused by liberal establishment. During candidacy he was first interviewed by liberal members of Parliament in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on his attitude towards homosexuality. As a Christian he answered in line with his conscience and the teaching of the Catholic Church that regards homosexual behaviour for sin. Liberal politicians and liberal media grossly misrepresented his views and made every possible effort to portray him as right-wing extremist. Buttiglione's case is perceived as the turning point when thinking of western civilization traditionally rooted in Christian values that were still practised by postwar Christian politicians of the calibre of German Konrad Adenauer, Italian Alcide De Gasperi, French Charles de Gaulle and Robert Schuman[note 3] displayed the full erosion and rejected its own roots. The sentence "Better communist than Christian" has apparently become the slogan of the day. Christians are becoming more and more unwelcome, this time in western society, likewise as during communists' rule in Soviet block.

The only Christianity acceptable for the contemporary liberal society is a kind of Christianity-caricature, the one that is said to be "tolerant", meaning the one that is willing to betray its own basic values. Some western Christian democratic parties adopted to this requirement however usually lost their electorates. Liberals naturally refrain from voting them because they think these parties are Christian, and Christians refrain from voting them because they know it is not so.[3]

Characteristics of Anthropological Revolution

Anti-Christian sentiment. The Observatory's Report on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in the Year 2011 portrays the most important developments with regard to freedom of religion, the most striking cases of intolerance and discrimination throughout Europe – and what individuals and institutions say about it. The report includes several statistics as well as analysis of the meaning of freedom of religion in the European context.[8] Gudrun Kugler, director of the Observatory, explains: „Studies suggest that 85% of all hate crimes with an anti-religion background in Europe are directed against Christians. It is high time for the public debate to respond to this reality! We also notice professional restrictions for Christians: a restrictive application of freedom of conscience leads to professions such as magistrates, doctors, nurses and midwives as well as pharmacists slowly closing for Christians. Teachers and parents get into trouble when they disagree with state-defined sexual ethics. Our research shows that only with a more accommodating approach to religion and specifically to Christianity, Europe will live up to its foundational value of freedom.“

Agenda of Anthropological Revolution

Abortion

Euthanasia

Family disintegration

Homosexual Agenda

Main article:Homosexual Agenda.
According to Dr Gudrun Kugler, a lawyer in Vienna, Austria, and founder of the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, the homosexual agenda is usually promoted via scenario when first some kind of the governmental Committee on so called LGBTI rights is established and then following steps are promulgated:[9]

Introducing the Act on civil unions of homosexuals

The 2nd aim is the possibility for child adoption and access to assisted reproductive services (artificial insemination, foster parenting).

Educational Influence of young generation, in UK the adherents of homosexual ideology started to distribute book with fairy-tales about one prince falling in love with other.[10][11][12] The draft EU report “on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU,” tabled by a far-Left Dutch Member of the European Parliament, claimed school curriculum materials should stop depicting men and women in their “traditional roles” of mothers and fathers.[13]

Establishing a legislative on „hate speech crimes“ so that everybody who disagrees with homosexual behavior could be legally persecuted.[14]

The Equality Act Regulations, used as fig leaf for draconian punishment and ruining financially those who would dare to apply Christian values in their occupations (teacher,[15] marriage officer,[16] psychoterapeutist[17] etc.), business (bed and breakfast[18][19]), foster parenting[20] or charity[21] (refusal of adoptions for gay people and similar experiments with children[22][23]).

Institutions and people bearing the traits of anthropological revolution

The more than half-a-century process of gradual transition from sympathizing with soviet communism and from anti-anticommunism towards modern leftist liberalism can be in the best way demonstrated by stories of the institutions and individuals in the Western Society. The list of illustrative episodes could be amendable almost unlimitedly:

Notes

↑From this perspective, it is symptomatic that in October 2012 the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF), i.e. the network of mostly left-wing members of European national parliaments and the European Parliament compiled a ranking of Top 27 so called European Anti-choice Personalities. The First position was given to Slovak Christian democrat Anna Zaborska who openly opposes agenda on abortions and euthanasia and maintains that "We have ended up in a situation when otherwise healthy older people see no reason why to live. I see this as a serious signal that the family ties between generations are crumbling." The 'enemies' were divided into several categories: Continental Catholic Mainstream Personalities, Catholic "Hard Right", Ecumenical: Northern Catholics, Protestants, Othodox and "Ultras"-Far Right, Traditionalist Catholic &TFP (Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property). When journalists approached ten members of the Forum with the question on what purpose the material should serve, member of the German Parliament Uwe Kekeritz distanced himself from the activities on grounds that he "personally rejects such methods and lists". Other members either were unable to respond or directed journalists to forum's official spokesman.[1][2]

↑Superstar of French culture, actor and chansonnier Yves Montand humbly concluded after soviet tanks rolled over the Hungarian Revolution and when Khrushchev spouted barefaced lies about what happened there: "We have been stupid, stupid and dangerous!"[7]

↑French Christian Democrat and statesman from whose initiative the European Coal and Steel Community was founded, the predecessor of European Union.

↑Brad Darrach (1988-May-16). Yves Montand: Amid Memories of Old Wars and Lost Loves, the Most Seductive of Frenchmen Looks Ahead to New Conquests. Time Inc.. Retrieved on 2012-10-20. “Until he was 35, Montand was a Stalinist, though he never actually joined the Party. But in 1956, when Russian tanks rolled over the Hungarian Revolution, he smelled a very large rat. Later that year he smelled another when he and Simone had a heated three-hour clash with Khrushchev, who spouted barefaced lies about what happened in Budapest. "We have been stupid, stupid and dangerous!" Montand said bitterly. From that day he began to evolve his own political views. They are still evolving. "Every day," he says, "I reinvent myself. One must take risks—or die.”

↑mkp/dpa (March 13, 2007). Homosexual Penguins in the Curriculum: Gay Fairy Tales for British Pupils. Spiegel Online International. Retrieved on September 26, 2013. “Homosexual kings, lesbian mothers and gay penguins -- these are the protagonists of a new type of schoolbook for British children. A pilot scheme run at elementary schools aims to raise sexually-tolerant students -- their parents are not amused. Once upon a time a prince was looking for a suitable queen to be. He was introduced to one princess, two princesses … and fell in love with another prince. They married each other in a dream wedding and lived together happily ever after. Sounds like an underground gay comic? It isn't -- the text in question is a schoolbook. School children in Britain learn about sexual diversity and alternative family structures from an early age. A state-supported pilot scheme run at 14 elementary schools -- attended by children from the age of four to 11 -- is stirring up trouble with its sexually liberal message.”

↑Ban children’s books depicting traditional families: ‘gender stereotyping’ says EU report. LifeSiteNews.com (November 30, 2012). Retrieved on January 7, 2013. “The draft report “on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU,” tabled by a far-Left Dutch MEP, said school curriculum materials should stop depicting men and women in their “traditional roles” of mothers and fathers. The UK’s Daily Mail reported that, were the draft report’s recommendations to be implemented, it would mean banning most traditional English children’s literature, including works which have become literary classics like Paddington Bear, Peter Pan, and Enid Blyton’s Famous Five stories.”

↑Eric Metaxas (Jun 28, 2012). How will gay ‘marriage’ hurt us? Here’s how.. Breakpoint.org / LifeSiteNews.com. “For instance, in Saskatchewan, a homosexual man called a state marriage commissioner, wanting to “marry” his partner. The commissioner, an evangelical Christian, declined to conduct the ceremony for religious reasons. He simply referred the man to another commissioner.But that was not enough for the gay couple. Even though they got their ceremony, they wanted to punish the Christian who had declined to conduct it. The case ended up in the courts. And the result? Those with religious objections to conducting such ceremonies now face the loss of their jobs.”